Estates), Chepauk, Madras by its order dated 22.2.68, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem, the fourth respondent cannot once again hold an enquiry merely on the basis of a complaint given by the respondents 5 to 8 herein. Adding further, it is stated that after the death of the petitioners' father Mr.Nawab Sheriff on 27.11.76, the petitioners being the legal heirs obtained patta in their favour. Even the private respondents are also the close relatives of the petitioners. However, when the father of the sixth respondent as well as the eighth respondent along with their relatives attempted to trespass into the above said property on 27.3.82, the petitioners 1,2,4 & 6 filed a civil suit in O.S.No.383 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Salem for a permanent injunction and the said suit was also decreed as prayed for on 6.1.83. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants in that suit also filed A.S.No.2 of 1983 before the Principal Sub Court, Salem and the same was dismissed on 31.8.94. Still aggrieved, the father of the sixth respondent as well as the eighth respondent along with others preferred a second appeal before this Court in S.A.No.756 of 1995 and the same was also dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 11.8.2000 and thus, the decree of the trial Court, which was confirmed by both the first and second appellate Courts, had become final. In spite of the clear title and ownership confirmed in favour of the petitioners, the respondents 5 to 8 along with their relatives made an illegal attempt to trespass into the property and based on the frivolous and false complaint made by the respondents 5 to 8, in spite of the order passed by the Director of Settlements, Madras dated 17.10.66, which was confirmed by the Board of Revenue (Settlement of Estates), Madras vide order dated 22.2.68, the fourth respondent ought not to have summoned the petitioners for an enquiry. Again referring to the order dated 22.2.68 passed by the Board of Revenue, the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the Board of Revenue, considering the judgment passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem in I.A.Nos.1092 of 1964 and 55 of 1965 filed in O.S.No.188 of 1951, has recorded a finding that the land in question is a private property belonging to the petitioners' family. Therefore, when the petitioners' family were able to establish their title and possession before the Director of Settlements, Madras and again before the Board of Revenue (Settlement of Estates), Chepauk as well as before the civil Court, the enquiry notice issued by the fourth respondent is wholly amounting to re-litigation, which is not permissible, as that would take away the precious and
